If the only way you will believe we are making progress is for me to hold the same double standard as you, then no, we aren't, and it is unlikely we ever shall.
I judge the validity of a line of reasoning on the soundness of its logic, not on the conclusion it leads me to.
If the only way you will believe we are making progress is for me to hold the same double standard as you, then no, we aren't, and it is unlikely we ever shall.
I judge the validity of a line of reasoning on the soundness of its logic, not on the conclusion it leads me to.
Do you see the problem? You believe you are doing x and y but I also believe I am doing x and y, and never the twain shall meet.
No, according to you, it is fundamentally impossible.
You have constantly refused to accept the simple fact that the lack of testable and verifiable evidence for religious claims is best explained by those claims being complete bunk.
It is fundamentally impossible to have objective evidence for a God that is not an objective reality.
You have constantly refused to accept the simple fact that the lack of testable and verifiable evidence for religious claims is best explained by those claims not testable in the way you want them to be testable. However, they are testable.
“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.
Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
Let's be clear here.
You claim you have evidence for your position. I ask to see that evidence. You give me opinions that you believe are true. I tell you that your opinions are not evidence. You say that there is no evidence. You say that there are other kinds of evidence, and post a link about 15 different kinds of evidence. I show why those kinds of evidence are invalid. You claim there is evidence for your position.
Let's be clear here.
I say I have evidence for my beliefs. You ask to see that evidence. I tell you what that evidence is. You tell me that my opinions are not evidence. I say they are not my opinions, they are evidence.
I say that there are other kinds of evidence aside from testable evidence and post a link about 15 different kinds of evidence. You say those kinds of evidence are invalid and offer
no explanation as to why they are invalid.
There is not a single valid scientific test that shows that homeopathic medicine has any effectiveness.
How could you
possibly know that? Have you researched everything that is available? Or is that just another biased personal opinion? I know you are wrong because I have researched it.
Then the same problem we had with God appears to apply to the Holy Spirit. You haven't solved the problem, you've just pushed it back a step.
It will never be solved because you can never know how God communicates through the Holy Spirit since you are not a Messenger of God.
You make me laugh.
I and several others have pointed out the multitudinous logical fallacies you have made.
No one other than you has claimed I have committed logical fallacies.
Why would it matter
how many people have pointed it out? You either committed them or you did not. I always explain HOW you commit them and I have never seen a refutation. You and others have never explained HOW I committed any fallacies because if you had doe so I could have proved I did not commit any.
Your opinion is not evidence. If you fail to understand that, then there is no hope for a rational discussion.
I never said my opinion is evidence, not once, not EVER.
That is another big fat straw man.
Then you should understand that having issues with God - something that requires you to believe that God exists - is completely incompatible with the atheistic position of not believing in God.
I thought you said you liked logic. You seem to have difficulty with its application.
You still did not understand what I said even though I repeated it over and over again..
I said: "If I was going to become an atheist it would be because I have issues with God."
In other words, if I was a believer who had issues with God I would go from being a believer to becoming an atheist and
I would no longer believe in God.
And then I said that I cannot become an atheist even though I have issues with God because I believe that God exists.
In other words, I believe that God exists so I cannot become an atheist since atheists do not believe that God exists.
That is completely logical.
Claiming that what you have is "evidence" for the supernatural claims of your religion (or any other) is no different to me claiming that comic books are evidence for Batman.
Another big fat straw man.
How many times do I have to tell you that I do not have any evidence for the supernatural claims of my religion (or any other religion), 100 times, 1000 times, 1,000,000 times?
